|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LuViz.jpg) Arid Waters Version 1.1 Published on NA Created by erazeR
Playable Area Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +
Full Area Overview:
+ Show Spoiler +
Aesthetics:
+ Show Spoiler +
Analyser:
+ Show Spoiler +
DETAILS:
Map Name: Arid Waters
Spawn positions: 2
Full Area:152x176
Playable Area: 132x148
Lighting: Mar Sara - Modified.
Textures:
Mar Sara Sand
Mar Sara Rocky
Mar Sara Dirt Cracked
Mar Sara Dark Sand
Mar Sara Concrete
Xil Grass
Meinhoff Sand Dunes(not much of this one used)
Cliffs: Mar Sara Organic Cliffs
Bases: 12 Blue bases (zero golds)
XWT: 2
Rocks: 2
Hi everyone! Happy new year! This is the second map I have created for Starcraft 2(in a week lol).
I'm sure people reading this will be able to understand the reasoning behind the name when they open the map or look at some of the images of the map. This map is a desert styled theme, something which I don't really see too often in this game, even though I think it looks nice.
Design:
Once again when I designed the layout for this map, I followed my personal opinion's requirements, after recieveing feedback from my last map(too big). I believe a good map requires an easy to defend Natural base, that is FFE'able etc- with a ramp to encourage earlier expands and less 1 base play, as well as a third base which is very contestable but not impossible to acquire. For this map, I chose to make it a desert-styled theme. Due to the lack of maps currently(at least in the competitive map pool) that fit these requirements that I have listed and that are in this theme.
In-game description:
Two player map. Your first expansion is easy to defend. Destroying the rocks give better access to the third base. The third base is harder to hold with multiple entrances and relatively open spaces. Use the Xel-Naga-Towers to view the middle areas of the map.
UPDATED to version 1.1
---
Thanks and feedback and suggestions are welcome and I will do my best to improve this map from it!
|
|
|
Hey man!
Being a zerg player I always analyse a new map critically, looking at how favorable it is for the Zerg race. I have to say it looks pretty good! :D Here's why IMO
+ Show Spoiler +Zerg Pros:
Long rush distance, defensible natural before rocks are broken, but easy third afterwards.
No gold base! <3
Muta harass will be strong, especially against third bases.
Wide open midfield
Zerg cons:
Wide open natural. Hellions will wreck drones at the natural without proper defense.
So I think it looks great 
I do have a few issues though, the Xell Naga towers seem a bit OP so far as i can tell, hold both and you'll be able to overlook all mid-map avenues. Also the natural ramp is huge! I would make it the same size as Antiga, Shakuras etc
Cheers!
|
Wide open natural. Hellions will wreck drones at the natural without proper defense.
There's a ramp there ^^.
By the way, this ramp is cardinal => baaaaad for competitive play. You should make it point towards the third, to make the expansion layout more natural.
|
By the way, this ramp is cardinal => baaaaad for competitive play
Cardinal ramps are fine except for the main base ramp. They do look silly though.
|
Im curious wether you can see the centre bases with the watch tower?
|
United States10219 Posts
make the natural ramp go into an intermediate direction, or slanted. besides that, this map is amazing.
|
There's nothing wrong with this type of ramp. That's a complete misconception. It is only different, so you have to think about how it affects things. It's not bad though.
|
Cardinal ramps are bad. Here's why.
-Harder to wall off. Try and wall off one of these, and you'll see how vulnerable you are to baneling busts as terran, and even toss with this next point.
-Imperfect forcefields. It takes an additional forcefield to wall of a cardinal ramp of 2 width, than a diagonal ramp of 2 width. The more forcefields needed by toss early game, the worse off.
-They're shorter. If you look at the length from top to bottom of a diagonal ramp, then at a cardinal ramp, its obvious. There is just less distance between the high ground and the low ground on cardinal ramps. Thus, defenders have less reaction time to forcefield/raise depots against stim marines, speedlings, etc. Not to mention the attacker sees the high ground quicker, allowing easier high ground warpins and tanks positioned at bottom of the ramp become much stronger.
All in all, cardinal ramps are just bad for defenders, and pretty much nullify any defenders advantage of being on the high ground, which is bad. The point of high ground is give defenders advantage, and cardinal ramps pretty much ruin that... Thus, strategies such as 1-1-1 and baneling busts become much much stronger.
EDIT: grammar
|
I disagree. I think those things are differences, which have to be taken into account when placing them, but don't have to be problems.
-Harder to wall off. Try and wall off one of these, and you'll see how vulnerable you are to baneling busts as terran, and even toss with this next point.
While true, I don't see why those are bad. A ramp that wide, with this orientation, yes would be hard to hold from banelings, but I think it's obvious a Terran or Toss would wall in from the main ramp to nexus/cc, like they usually do anyway, except on very small ramps like Shakuras and sometimes Antiga, and Tal Darim because there isn't a ramp. I think it's a case-by-case thing, and this type of ramp doesn't have to make baneling busts so good that it's broken.
It's also possible to add small doodads, like rocks, to the corner of these ramps which makes walling way easier, if it's necessary on a specific map.
-Imperfect forcefields. It takes an additional forcefield to wall of a cardinal ramp of 2 width, than a diagonal ramp of 2 width. The more forcefields needed by toss early game, the worse off.
Obviously a 2-width cardinal ramp is not the equivilent of a 2-width diagonal ramp. They don't have to be the same. (Also, diagonal ramps are wider, so a I think it's a 3-width Cardinal that requires more FFs that a 2-width diagonal. Perhaps you overlooked the existence of the 1-width cardinal and counted 2 as 1.) The ramp on the nat of Antiga requires more FFs that the one on Shakuras, and that's totally acceptable. I don't see how this is a problem.
-They're shorter. If you look at the length from top to bottom of a diagonal ramp, then at a cardinal ramp, its obvious. There is just less distance between the high ground and the low ground on cardinal ramps. Thus, defenders have less reaction time to forcefield/raise depots against stim marines, speedlings, etc. Not to mention the attacker sees the high ground quicker, allowing easier high ground warpins and tanks positioned at bottom of the ramp become much stronger.
I don't think that makes quite as much of a difference. There's still an exact line where you cross from low ground to high ground. This is a little bit closer to the buildings you would all off with, I would expend, and that actually increases the defender's advantage, because it actually takes longer for the attacker to get up there. The vision you have to see the units coming is the same, but it takes longer before they can see you. It would be more like defending an old ramp before the vision adjustment in one patch, which actually decreased defending advantage, because you had less time before they could see above.
Also, many natural expansions don't have ramps at all, so even if the defender's advantage of being on high ground is less that a diagonal ramp, it doesn't matter.
So to conclude, I think they have their place and aren't bad. Whether this exact ramp fits on this exact map, is another matter. And they might not ever good to use for main ramps, although I think with the addition of a rock or two they could be fine. The benefit of making the ramp go at the angle you want is way worth any non-existent flaws that cardinal ramps have.
They are ugly, though.
|
So I guess you started with the main and natural and then placed your third, fourth and fifth where you wanted them. But then you ended up with all this space (except the hole in the middle) and thought to yourself, "man I gotta choke this up", and put blimps all over the map. I don't think this is a good way of designing and I wish you had put more thought into it. I do however like the basic layout. Keep at it!
|
The cliffs are easily abused by tanks. The one at the natural, siege up on the very low ground, scan, and hit anything on the natural high ground or main high ground.
|
Thanks everyone for the input so far! I will change these ramps to a diagonal probably later today regardless of whether there is a factual problem behind it. If there are any other suggestions please feel free to give me feedback
On January 02 2012 10:26 Shiger wrote:
So I guess you started with the main and natural and then placed your third, fourth and fifth where you wanted them. But then you ended up with all this space (except the hole in the middle) and thought to yourself, "man I gotta choke this up", and put blimps all over the map. I don't think this is a good way of designing and I wish you had put more thought into it. I do however like the basic layout. Keep at it!
To be fair the holes and cliffs at the third were completely based on a layout that I had already designed in ms paint (similar third base as xel naga caverns' natural base).
|
On January 02 2012 10:10 Gfire wrote:I disagree. I think those things are differences, which have to be taken into account when placing them, but don't have to be problems. Show nested quote +-Harder to wall off. Try and wall off one of these, and you'll see how vulnerable you are to baneling busts as terran, and even toss with this next point.
While true, I don't see why those are bad. A ramp that wide, with this orientation, yes would be hard to hold from banelings, but I think it's obvious a Terran or Toss would wall in from the main ramp to nexus/cc, like they usually do anyway, except on very small ramps like Shakuras and sometimes Antiga, and Tal Darim because there isn't a ramp. I think it's a case-by-case thing, and this type of ramp doesn't have to make baneling busts so good that it's broken. It's also possible to add small doodads, like rocks, to the corner of these ramps which makes walling way easier, if it's necessary on a specific map. Show nested quote +-Imperfect forcefields. It takes an additional forcefield to wall of a cardinal ramp of 2 width, than a diagonal ramp of 2 width. The more forcefields needed by toss early game, the worse off. Obviously a 2-width cardinal ramp is not the equivilent of a 2-width diagonal ramp. They don't have to be the same. (Also, diagonal ramps are wider, so a I think it's a 3-width Cardinal that requires more FFs that a 2-width diagonal. Perhaps you overlooked the existence of the 1-width cardinal and counted 2 as 1.) The ramp on the nat of Antiga requires more FFs that the one on Shakuras, and that's totally acceptable. I don't see how this is a problem. Show nested quote +-They're shorter. If you look at the length from top to bottom of a diagonal ramp, then at a cardinal ramp, its obvious. There is just less distance between the high ground and the low ground on cardinal ramps. Thus, defenders have less reaction time to forcefield/raise depots against stim marines, speedlings, etc. Not to mention the attacker sees the high ground quicker, allowing easier high ground warpins and tanks positioned at bottom of the ramp become much stronger.
I don't think that makes quite as much of a difference. There's still an exact line where you cross from low ground to high ground. This is a little bit closer to the buildings you would all off with, I would expend, and that actually increases the defender's advantage, because it actually takes longer for the attacker to get up there. The vision you have to see the units coming is the same, but it takes longer before they can see you. It would be more like defending an old ramp before the vision adjustment in one patch, which actually decreased defending advantage, because you had less time before they could see above. Also, many natural expansions don't have ramps at all, so even if the defender's advantage of being on high ground is less that a diagonal ramp, it doesn't matter. So to conclude, I think they have their place and aren't bad. Whether this exact ramp fits on this exact map, is another matter. And they might not ever good to use for main ramps, although I think with the addition of a rock or two they could be fine. The benefit of making the ramp go at the angle you want is way worth any non-existent flaws that cardinal ramps have. They are ugly, though.
-If you have to wall of at you're nexus/CC, you are no longer defending at the ramp, thus ruining defenders advantage on the high ground.
-You got me there, had it backwards. However them not being the same width is an issue. A player may expect a result to be the same between the two ramps, when they are not. That's an issue. It would be as if walking up to a Xel'naga watch tower expecting to see range 22, and you only see range 11. Sure maps can have things like this, but it just isn't good for getting your map used in competitive play, or played on at all.
-Shorter distance = Quicker time up ramp = Quicker to see high ground. Despite how small of a difference, it is quite an important one. Starcraft 2 is a game of inches and seconds, especially in the higher levels of competitive play. Making it so the offender can make it up the ramp and see up the ramp quicker decreases the defenders reaction time. Thus, decreasing defenders advantage.
Point being, cardinal ramps severely decrease defenders advantage when engaging at the ramp, ruining the purpose of there being a ramp in the first place. Sure naturals don't need ramps to be balanced, but why have one if you ruin its purpose? It doesn't make much sense...
|
Okay, I've made some changes to the ramps, but I haven't yet published to battle net because I wanted to ask what people thought of it first.
Pictures taken from editior:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
as you can see I shortened the width of the ramp as requested and also made it point towards the third. Is this correct?
|
-If you have to wall of at you're nexus/CC, you are no longer defending at the ramp, thus ruining defenders advantage on the high ground.
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see how it's a problem. Are you saying every map should let players wall in at their nat? In that case, you should be complaining about this map in particular, and the use of difficult-to-wall ramps on natural expansions, not about Cardinal ramps overall. I think it's normal for naturals with ramps to have pretty small ones which can be walled off, yes, and the maps where players wall off to CC/Nexus don't have ramps at the nats, though I don't think it has to be that way. I suppose to you, having a ramp on the nat implies that you should be able to wall off there? That's interesting, I never thought of it that way before. This is kind of a seperate debate, though, as it doesn't have much to do with Cardinal ramps so much as hard to wall in ramps in general, which could apply to large enough diagonal ramps while not to smaller cardinal ramps or those with doodads to assist walling.
-You got me there, had it backwards. However them not being the same width is an issue. A player may expect a result to be the same between the two ramps, when they are not. That's an issue. It would be as if walking up to a Xel'naga watch tower expecting to see range 22, and you only see range 11. Sure maps can have things like this, but it just isn't good for getting your map used in competitive play, or played on at all.
I don't think so. It's obviously a completely different size and shape. Why would someone assume it takes the same number of FFs as a ramp which looks and is a different size and shape. I really don't see this being an issue. You'd have to be incredibly unintelligent and have no understanding of the way the game grid works to make a mistake like that.
-Shorter distance = Quicker time up ramp = Quicker to see high ground. Despite how small of a difference, it is quite an important one. Starcraft 2 is a game of inches and seconds, especially in the higher levels of competitive play. Making it so the offender can make it up the ramp and see up the ramp quicker decreases the defenders reaction time. Thus, decreasing defenders advantage.
No, that's not true. The shorter distance is how far the model of the ramp extends from the cliffside. The buildings will always be right at the top of the cliff. From the very base of the ramp model, to where they can see the high ground, will be shorter, but the distance should not be measured from the base of the ramp model, but from the point at which they can begin getting shot at by what's on the high ground, which does not change. Like This:
Short Ramp:
------------Point at which they can be shot at
|
|
|
------------Base of ramp
|
|
------------Point at which they see high ground
|
|
------------Units at top of ramp
Long Ramp:
------------Point at which they can be shot at
|
------------Base of ramp
|
|
|
------------Point at which they see high ground
|
|
|
------------Units at top of ramp
You see, the point at which they can see the high ground takes longer to reach on the short ramp, because it is closer to the top of the ramp. They have to get closer to you before they can shoot you. The distance from the bottom of the ramp doesn't matter, only the distance from the top of the ramp. I know, it's a little hard to wrap your head around the concept. It seems counter-intuitive. It was a long time before I actually figured this out, when blizzard lowered the vision line on ramps and everyone thought it was an increase to defenders advantage.
But to your last point, about having a seemingly useless ramp... There is still purpose. Because it is the only passage from high to low ground. It may not be about that exact point having a defenders advantage, engaging on the ramp, but if you want that area to be on high ground, there has to be a ramp. If you lowered the natural on this map to be the same height as the rest of the map, there would be other problems. Minor ones in this case, probably, but in some cases it would destroy a map. Sometimes one area has to be on high ground due to map structure, not just so that the player gets an advantage in the exact spot of the ramp. So even if cardinal ramps do ruin the defender's advantage because it is hard to wall in, that doesn't mean the ramp is completely pointless or that it is "bad," by any means.
|
Where you are talking some sense, there are reasons top mappers and blizzard don't use cardinal ramps. You did bring me to light on the length of the ramp, but as for the other points I don't think I'm getting your point or you're getting mine. Any how, I really don't feel like arguing any longer. If you think they are totally feasible, maybe you should make a map entirely of cardinal ramps and blow away the community. Would be interesting to see how things turn out...
erazerr, assuming you fix the ramps, this is a solid map. I'm quite pleased to see expansions in the middle. Nice aesthetic work as well
|
Well, erazerr, I think you should get more opinions from others before changing the ramps. Obviously just having the two of us argue about it won't help you to know what everyone wants. Personally, I think the cardinal ramp was best in this case in terms of flow. Putting it at one direction or the other makes army movement awkward and changes how easy different expansions are to hold or take.
The diagonal ones do have an advantage visually. They are more pleasing to the eye and it might be easier to tell the position of units, which is of course important. I think they should be used cautiously for this reason, and it might be enough to warrant a change in this situation. Just thinking about watching and playing on them makes me think they might be bad idea.
Although I argue in favor of them, I do think they should be used cautiously. Very cautiously. The best use of them I've seen was on Kulas Ravine. They've gone out of style since then. I think so much can be done without them that they haven't been tried very much.
I think that before dismissing them entirely, more evidence is needed. The problems with them are not as major as they sound by the way everyone talks about them.
Edit: Also, please note that these sorts of debates do tend to further mapping. I don't hate you or anything, nor am I as strong in my belief as I sound. I guess I am playing devil's advocate (to some extent.)
|
After receiving feedback from this thread as well as from various other master league players that I know - I have Updated to version 1.1:
Changes:
* Natural ramp positioning changed to most applicable location
* Fixed some texture blends
--
Ramp placed in that position to avoid awkward army engagements and to make the third slightly harder to take, and at the same time making the destructible rocks more profitable to access the third base.
Feedback still open and thanks for it so far!
|
That ramp is still quite wide, probably won't be walling on it. I think that's fine. That's a good point, that it makes the third harder to take and increases the value of the destructible rocks. This might be for the best.
I've always taken a fairly logical, reasonable approach to these things. Sort of a philosophy of, if you think it's a bad idea, use it a lot to see if there's any possibility it isn't. While I still agree with that, I guess a fair amount of it is actually gut instinct. Starcraft is a game of both logic and passion, and map making is no different. I'm a bit torn inside due to that, cause I don't see a logical reason not to use to use Cardinal ramps, but in most cases I still rather disgusted with them. I think we need to get a wide range of public opinions to decide whether they are good in general, but it's very case-by-case, I think.
|
In before this is in GSL
User was warned for this post
|
On January 03 2012 16:06 Blazington wrote:
In before this is in GSL
All 3 of your posts are "in before this is in GSL." Be more productive and on topic with the map please.
|
Lolzy thing: this sort of looks like a rotated and re-textured Daybreak to me... so I automatically assume its pretty damn well balanced.
Second, I need to know how much HP and armor those rocks have. If they have too many, I finna say this map isn't very nice in ZvP D:
|
On January 03 2012 18:08 Hossinaut wrote:
Lolzy thing: this sort of looks like a rotated and re-textured Daybreak to me... so I automatically assume its pretty damn well balanced.
Second, I need to know how much HP and armor those rocks have. If they have too many, I finna say this map isn't very nice in ZvP D:
I like to think of this map similar to Xel-Naga Caverns but bigger with a safer natural, a third base similar to xel'naga's natural, and no gold bases.
The rocks by the way are 2000 HP and 3 armor - I'm not sure whether you think that is too much and I'm not sure whether it is changeable?
|
Please excuse my insolence, I merely post the same message twice in one thread because I am very pleased with the solid outcome of Erazerr's second map 'Arid Waters' (and happier with the changes made in v1.1). The map looks to have great aesthetics and the potential of many great games to be played on it.
Definitely going to be in GSL.
|
To me, if a zergling didn't do 2 damage to the rocks, it would be about as acceptable as having rocks can get <3 haha
|
I don't really like changin the HP or armor of rocks while maintaining the same object model and name. People will expect it to take the same amount of time to destroy as the otherwise-identical rocks on other maps. I think if you wanted to change the HP or armor you would have to make it some type of new structure or rock model which players will expect to work differently.
|
The tileset and layout reminds me a lot of Arid Plateau. Looks like a more balanced version of that map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Kqodg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xgPWR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IHlk1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6tucI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PgIQn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/chSaj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IqeqR.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jjJzW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fzKXw.jpg)
